Mercenaries
stevek
Posts: 29,034 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
2008 Team Payroll Average
Yankees $209,081,579 $6,744,567
Tigers $138,685,197 $4,622,840
Mets $138,293,378 $4,609,779
Red Sox $133,440,037 $4,765,716
White Sox $121,152,667 $4,487,136
Angels $119,216,333 $4,110,908
Cubs $118,595,833 $4,392,438
Dodgers $118,536,038 $4,233,430
Mariners $117,993,982 $4,538,230
Braves $102,424,018 $3,414,134
Cardinals $100,624,450 $3,049,226
Blue Jays $98,641,957 $3,522,927
Phillies $98,269,881 $3,388,617
Astros $ 88,930,415 $3,293,719
Brewers $ 81,004,167 $2,793,247
Indians $ 78,970,067 $3,037,310
Giants $76,904,500 $2,651,879
Reds $74,277,695 $2,971,108
Padres $ 73,677,617 $2,376,697
Rockies $ 68,655,500 $2,640,596
Rangers $ 68,239,551 $2,353,088
Orioles $67,196,248 $2,099,883
Diamondbacks $66,202,713 $2,364,383
Twins $ 62,182,767 $ 2,487,311
Royals $58,245,500 $2,240,212
Nationals $ 54,961,000 $1,895,207
Pirates $ 49,365,283 $1,898,665
A's $ 47,967,126 $1,713,112
Rays $43,820,598 $1,460,687
Marlins $ 21,836,500 $661,712
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mets payroll with their gang of mercenaries is 40% higher than the Phillies payroll. Watch, listen and learn - despite that, the Mets still won't win the NL East this season.
-
Yankees $209,081,579 $6,744,567
Tigers $138,685,197 $4,622,840
Mets $138,293,378 $4,609,779
Red Sox $133,440,037 $4,765,716
White Sox $121,152,667 $4,487,136
Angels $119,216,333 $4,110,908
Cubs $118,595,833 $4,392,438
Dodgers $118,536,038 $4,233,430
Mariners $117,993,982 $4,538,230
Braves $102,424,018 $3,414,134
Cardinals $100,624,450 $3,049,226
Blue Jays $98,641,957 $3,522,927
Phillies $98,269,881 $3,388,617
Astros $ 88,930,415 $3,293,719
Brewers $ 81,004,167 $2,793,247
Indians $ 78,970,067 $3,037,310
Giants $76,904,500 $2,651,879
Reds $74,277,695 $2,971,108
Padres $ 73,677,617 $2,376,697
Rockies $ 68,655,500 $2,640,596
Rangers $ 68,239,551 $2,353,088
Orioles $67,196,248 $2,099,883
Diamondbacks $66,202,713 $2,364,383
Twins $ 62,182,767 $ 2,487,311
Royals $58,245,500 $2,240,212
Nationals $ 54,961,000 $1,895,207
Pirates $ 49,365,283 $1,898,665
A's $ 47,967,126 $1,713,112
Rays $43,820,598 $1,460,687
Marlins $ 21,836,500 $661,712
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mets payroll with their gang of mercenaries is 40% higher than the Phillies payroll. Watch, listen and learn - despite that, the Mets still won't win the NL East this season.
-
0
Comments
To maintain the same standard of living, your salary of $100,000 in Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, Pennsylvania should increase to $140,385 in New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, New York
Stated another way, it's 40.4% more expensive to live in New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, New York than Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, Pennsylvania.
The salaries look right in line to me.
<< <i>form bestplaces.net -
To maintain the same standard of living, your salary of $100,000 in Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, Pennsylvania should increase to $140,385 in New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, New York
Stated another way, it's 40.4% more expensive to live in New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, New York than Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, Pennsylvania.
The salaries look right in line to me. >>
That has nothing to do with this and you know it. It's the lack of a salary cap which makes MLB the farce that it is as far as allowing all teams to be competitive. You're never going to get me to knock baseball - it's a great summer sport and I love the game. But unless there is a salary cap, which is so badly needed, and it's so obvious, then there's going to be situations whereby some teams have no realistic chance of getting into the playoffs.
Teams should never be "forced" to lose their best players to a mercenary based organization like the Mets, stealing away the top players....and with incompetent managers like Willie Randolph...they can't even win championships anyway - LOL.
-
<< <i>It's the lack of a salary cap which makes MLB the farce that it is as far as allowing all teams to be competitive. >>
Why are the teams in the middle and the bottom not asking congress to eliminate baseball's antitrust exemption?
Doing that would increase certainly increase competition. . .
<< <i>The salaries look right in line to me. >>
the bay area in CA has one of the highest costs of living in the united states. look where the giants and a's are at on that list.
<< <i>That has nothing to do with this and you know it. It's the lack of a salary cap which makes MLB the farce that it is as far as allowing all teams to be competitive. You're never going to get me to knock baseball - it's a great summer sport and I love the game. But unless there is a salary cap, which is so badly needed, and it's so obvious, then there's going to be situations whereby some teams have no realistic chance of getting into the playoffs. >>
It does have a little something to do with it - I'm not saying it accounts for all of the huge discrepancy in baseball, but to get a high-priced free agent to come in you have to make them the best offer possible and with the cost of living in the NY area and the high state and local taxes a 5 million dollar offer isn't the same as a 5 million dollar offer somewhere else...
When the owners of the "small market" teams start using all of the revenue sharing money they get to improve their teams and not line their pockets, then we'll see if there's a need for a salary cap. I won't hold my breath, though.
I'm not sure a salary cap is the answer. Look at the NFL. Despite the cap, the Bills have managed to miss the playoffs in this millenium. Still, the fans sell out the stadium and the team gets a sweetheart deal form the county. In return, in 5 years we won't have a team in Buffalo.
Some owners want to win, some only want to make obscene amounts of money. It stinks when your team has one of the latter!
"If I ever decided to do a book, I've already got the title-The Bases Were Loaded and So Was I"-Jim Fregosi
<< <i>
<< <i>That has nothing to do with this and you know it. It's the lack of a salary cap which makes MLB the farce that it is as far as allowing all teams to be competitive. You're never going to get me to knock baseball - it's a great summer sport and I love the game. But unless there is a salary cap, which is so badly needed, and it's so obvious, then there's going to be situations whereby some teams have no realistic chance of getting into the playoffs. >>
It does have a little something to do with it - I'm not saying it accounts for all of the huge discrepancy in baseball, but to get a high-priced free agent to come in you have to make them the best offer possible and with the cost of living in the NY area and the high state and local taxes a 5 million dollar offer isn't the same as a 5 million dollar offer somewhere else...
When the owners of the "small market" teams start using all of the revenue sharing money they get to improve their teams and not line their pockets, then we'll see if there's a need for a salary cap. I won't hold my breath, though.
I'm not sure a salary cap is the answer. Look at the NFL. Despite the cap, the Bills have managed to miss the playoffs in this millenium. Still, the fans sell out the stadium and the team gets a sweetheart deal form the county. In return, in 5 years we won't have a team in Buffalo.
Some owners want to win, some only want to make obscene amounts of money. It stinks when your team has one of the latter! >>
Those are valid points...but in my opinion a cap would at least be a good start.
<< <i> The averages appear to be off. The Angels have a higher total payroll then the Cubs and Dodgers, but there average is lower. How does that work >>
Simply put, my calculator shows that based on the chart, the Angels are paying 29 players, the Cubs are paying 27 players, and the Dodgers are paying 28 players.
My .02: I don't like a salary cap but I do like revenue sharing, the luxury tax, and I wish they'd implement a salary floor. Small market teams should have to spend the money they receive from revenue sharing on their payroll.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>SteveK already coming up with excuses for his Sillies to fall short this season. He knows that 2007 was a bizarre aberration, and with his gambling background, he also knows that "the law of averages" will steamroll his Sillies into the ground come September... >>
Jerry, if I've told you once, I've told you a hundred times, that you need to stop munching on those toadstools that grow in your backyard - you're hallucinating again. LOL
Steve
Salary cap?
ok.......
Geez is that Detroit floundering? What? don't they have so much in payroll?
Stevek I suggest you start talking about things you know about and stop with the things you know
little to nothing about.
Steve
<< <i>Teams can still be paying for guys that are no longer on their 25-man roster (like the Rangers paying for part of A-Rod's salary).
My .02: I don't like a salary cap but I do like revenue sharing, the luxury tax, and I wish they'd implement a salary floor. Small market teams should have to spend the money they receive from revenue sharing on their payroll. >>
Why? So they can go from 67 wins to 78? If you can't put the players on the field that will give a reasonable shot at 87 wins, what's the point of spending millions more in payroll?
The fact is, salary caps work. It allows teams like the Packers, the Flames, the Hornets, and so on to not only remain competitive, but to also remain relevant (i.e., they don't have to be content with the occasional fluky season that allows them a temporary stay amongst their respective league's elite). EVERY Red Sox, Yankee, Met and (now) Tigers fan that you talk to will first explain to the point of physical exhaustion how a high payroll 'doesn't mean anything', and in the very next breath will denounce the idea of a salary cap. Sorry, but it has to be either one or the other.
And for those of you who insist that a cap won't change anything because a high payroll 'doesn't guarantee anything', and who insist on pointing to the Twins, A's, etc. as poster children for the idea that on-field success is not determined exclusively by payroll, realize that the fact that a high payroll doesn't guarantee success is completely different from the idea that a high payroll correlates very highly with on-field success. If you want to argue that this correlation is weak, or that it's non-existent, then that would be an intriguing argument to make--- but I believe it would be a difficult position to justify.
in 1940
in 1950
The more baseball changes the more it stays the same.
The Marlins winning 2 WS was just a fluke?
I agree some sports benefit from a cap, baseball is not one of them.
Actually baseball does have a cap. The cap is what ever the highest payroll is.
Steve
edited to add: look for the Diamondbacks to have the best record in baseball this yr.
Steve
<< <i>I wonder who had the highest payroll in 1930?
in 1940
in 1950
The more baseball changes the more it stays the same.
The Marlins winning 2 WS was just a fluke?
I agree some sports benefit from a cap, baseball is not one of them.
Actually baseball does have a cap. The cap is what ever the highest payroll is.
Steve >>
<<< I wonder who had the highest payroll in 1930? >>>
We of course already already know the answer to your rhetorical type question...Yankeees, blah blah...and of course the Yankees basically "dominated" MLB back then.
But times have changed...Here's the big difference which you should know...there's more competition for the sports entertainment dollar than 50 or more years ago. MLB a number of years ago fell perilously close to fading to #3 in sports popularity to the NBA that almost rose to #2 during the Bird-Magic-Jordan era, but then the NBA started shooting itself in the foot and is a distant third again. If believing that the MLB owners didn't "panic" a little bit, and turned a blind eye to the rampant use of steroids back around that time to create interest in a waning game which was possibly going to lose its #2 spot, then that would be naive. It's all interconnected.
And a primary reason for the waning was fans were getting tired of their players always being stolen by the top teams. Yes, Ruth got sold to the Yankees, but for the most part during the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's the team's star players were able to stay with the team basically for most if not all of their careers...even up until the late 80's for a good part....until the monstrous "Steinbrenner type" spending for players began to occur.
Your comment "I agree some sports benefit from a cap, baseball is not one of them. Actually baseball does have a cap. The cap is what ever the highest payroll is"...is contradicting, and shows a basic lack of understanding of MLB history. It was the "reserve clause" that acted as a kind of a "salary cap" whereby a team could keep its best players - if the players didn't like the team's offer they could quit baseball and do something else. It would be naive on your part to deny that MLB was much more popular than any other professional sport back then and the stars sticking with a team was in my opinion a major reason why.
You're a conceited NY baseball fan because you've had a sports gravy train handed to you your whole life with your team's money stealing all the best players - but that isn't doing the overall game any good. Fortunately, baseball is such a great game that despite owners such as Steinbrenner, they still can't kill it.
I believe any NY fan would admit, that the recent NY Giants Super Bowl win was much sweeter than any Yankees WS win over the past many decades whereby "greatness" was expected by these Yankees teams because of their ability to steal players. Yes, there were some lapses before Steinbrenner bought the team, the Yankees were in disarray...but this meant the other teams won WS and what is wrong with that? Nothing wrong and everything right as it creates more national interest in the game.
Your reasoning about a MLB salary cap is just off base and flat out wrong, but is understandable from the perspective of a NY fan. When the reserve clause got thrown out, it's no coincidence that baseball started eventually floundering a bit and again almost dropped down to #3. Of course TV helped with the NFL's popularity and rise to #1, but there is more to it than that. Bottom line - baseball needs a salary cap and one day the MLB owners need to smarten up and do it.
-
October 2, 1966
Ruth! Gehrig! DiMaggio! Mantle! Etc.!
By LEONARD KOPPETT
How quickly can the Yankees come back? The answer is: Never. Not to what they were. Not to the level that symbolized perpetual success, power and wealth. Not to that monopoly of victory which brought them five pennants in a row twice, four in a row two other times, and three straight three times. Not to levels where they could win the World Series five times in succession, and account for 66 per cent of all American League pennants--29 out of 44--from 1921 through 1964.
Not the Yankees--nor anyone else.
It is no longer possible for any baseball team to achieve such a superiority, and it never will be again. Too much has changed, and the conditions that made the Yankee dynasty possible just don't exist any more. The fact that the Columbia Broadcasting System now owns the ball club really has very little to do with these changes--although they could have been partially foreseen and thus better understood. To see why this is so, we must look back at how Yankee supremacy was created and how it was maintained so long and renewed so often.
There is no mystery or uncertainty about how Yankee success began: it was bought.
On Jan. 5, 1920, the Yankees purchased Babe Ruth from the Boston Red Sox. He was an outstanding left-handed pitcher who was such a good hitter that he also played the outfield. In 1919, Ruth had broken all records by hitting 29 home runs. When the Yankees announced that they had paid $100,000 for his contract, it was a major event, the biggest deal till then in baseball history. Ruth revolutionized the game--both the way it was played and in the scale of its appeal for the public.
But it wasn't only Ruth. In the space of three years, the Yankees bought 14 other outstanding players, all from the Red Sox.
And there was a story behind the story.
Immediately before, and during, World War I, the Read Sox were the strongest team of the time. They won pennants in 1912, 1915, 1916 and 1918, and defeated four different National League champions in the World Series. But in 1917 they had been acquired by Harry Frazee, a theatrical producer whose need for money periodically became acute. One recognizable method of raising money was selling players.
The Yankees, meanwhile had never won anything. The American League had established itself as a second major league in 1901, but the Yankees had not been created until 1903. The team originally belonged to Frank Farrell, well known as the operator of a big gambling house, and Bill Devery, who had been New York's chief of police. They paid $18,000 for the Baltimore franchise, which was transferred to New York.
In 1915, they sold the club--for $460,000--to Jacob Ruppert, the brewer, and Tillinghast L'Hommedieu Huston, an engineer who had made his fortune building public works in Cuba, where he had remained after fighting in the Spanish-American War.
Two years later, when Huston was back at war in France, Ruppert hired a new manager for the Yankees--Miller Huggins, who had been managing the St. Louis Cardinals. Huston was enraged. He had wanted Wilbert Robinson, the Brooklyn manager. There was an angry exchange of cables, and the breach between the two owners was never healed. From that point on, Ruppert was in command of the Yankees.
Unlike most other American League owner, Ruppert had plenty of money and a burning desire to spend it on creating a winning team. And Frazee of the Red Sox was eager to sell; if his outstanding players were going to be converted into cash, they would have to go to the richest, and most willing, fellow owner.
At the end of the 1918 season the Yankees picked up Ernie Shore and Hub Leonard, pitchers, and Duffy Lewis, a great outfielder, for $50,000, giving three lesser players in return. And during the 1919 season they got Carl Mays, a still better pitcher, for another $50,000. That year the Yankees climbed to third place and the Red Sox fell to sixth.
But Frazee still needed money. In 1919, he asked Ruppert for a $500,000 loan. Ruppert instead, offered to buy Ruth. So Frazee sold Ruth for $100,000, and took a $350,000 loan.
Then, in a succession of one-sided trades with Frazee from 1920 to 1923, the Yankees acquired Waite Hoyte, Wally Schang, Joe Bush, Sam Jones, Herb Pennock, Joe Dugan, Deacon Scott, George Pipgras, Mike McNally and Harry Harper.
They were in business--and the Red Sox fell to last place. (Today, such a loan would not be permitted, on ethical grounds. When C.B.S. acquired the Yankees two years ago, the biggest objection raised was the possibility of conflict of interest, since some C.B.S. stock was held by other American League owners. They got rid of it.)
In 1920, with Ruth hitting an incredible total of 54 home runs (15 per cent of all home runs hit in the league), the Yankees ran third in a close race. In 1921, when Ruth hit 59 home runs, the Yankees won their first pennant. But they lost the World Series to the Giants.
Ruppert wasn't satisfied. He had brought in Ed Barrow, who had been field manager of the Red Sox, as business manager, a position that rarely existed in those days. The Giants, who recognized the advantage Ruth and victory were giving the Yankees in the battle for patronage, decided early in 1922 to push the Yankees out of the Polo Grounds, which both teams shared. Ruppert's reaction was to begin building Yankee Stadium across the Harlem River. Huston again disagreed and sold out, leaving Ruppert sole owner.
Both the Yankees and Giants won pennants again in 1922, and again the Giants won the Series. But in 1923, the Yankees opened the season in their own huge stadium. Ruth hit a home run. The Yankees won another pennant and drew more than 1,000,000 customers--almost 200,000 more than the Giants. This time, the Yankees won the World Series, too.
The dynasty had been established.
For the next decade, it was maintained by judicious purchases. In those days, minor- league clubs were independently owned, and sold their best players each year to the highest bidders. In such a market, the Yankees had three big advantages. Barrow, an experienced baseball man, had complete business authority in evaluating talent; Ruppert, insatiable in his desire for winners, was willing to spend any amount of money; and the club, with Ruth and the new Stadium, was taking in more money at the gate than any other club. The Connie Macks and the Clark Griffiths, who owned teams and had as much baseball experience as Barrow, didn't have the money. The owners who had more money didn't have a Barrow in charge.
That was the secret of the first stage of Yankee power: money to spend, and a good baseball brain to spend it.
By the end of the nineteen-twenties, though, a superior team was developed by Connie Mack in Philadelphia. The Yankees won pennants in 1926-27-28, but the Athletics beat them out in 1929-30-31. It was still possible to compete with them.
But now the Depression had begun. The Athletics became "White Elephants," and Mack had to sell off his stars. Meanwhile, Sam Breadon and Branch Rickey, operating the St. Louis Cardinals, had developed the farm system idea. Since a farm system meant that the major-league team would take responsibility for supplying players and financing minor- league teams, it was an obvious solution to many minor-league problems during the Depression, as local owners failed right and left.
Barrow could see that a farm system was a fine way to develop future talent. Ruppert, whatever the general economic conditions were, still had plenty of money to spend. Barrow started pouring Yankee money into a farm operation, hiring scouts, acquiring teams, signing large numbers of young prospects.
And one of the men Ruppert and Barrow hired to run the farm system was George Weiss, who had been a successful minor-league operator in New Haven and Baltimore. Weiss, it developed, was a tireless and immensely effective executive.
In the late twenties and early thirties, the Yankees had been replenished by such purchases in the minors as Tony Lazzeri, Mark Koenig, Earle Combs, Frank Crosetti, Bob Muesel, Lefty Gomez, Bill Dickey. Lou Gehrig had been found right on the nearby Columbia campus. In 1930 they got Red Ruffing from the Red Sox.
And the last important minor-league purchase the Yankees made was the best. In 1933, an 18-year-old kid burned up the Pacific Coast League so impressively that his owner wouldn't sell him, holding out for a better price than those that had been bid. In 1934, the kid badly injured his knee, and all the prospective buyers shied off--except the high- quality Yankee scouts Barrow had hired. For $25,000, and five players to be delivered subsequently, the Yankees took an option on the convalescing player and let him play the 1935 season at San Francisco. He hit .398. His name was Joe DiMaggio, and in 1936 he started a new sequence of Yankee supremacy.
Meanwhile, the farm system had been established, and here again the Yankee wealth produced a unique advantage. The Yankees could keep the candidates who were clearly the best prospect; they could let more questionable, but still promising, cases mature; and they still had plenty of surplus to trade for an older player when an older player was needed to plug a particular gap in a pennant-contending situation.
Between 1928 and 1936 the Yankees won only one pennant, in 1932, but they finished second five times and third once. In 1936, with DiMaggio added, they had one of the most powerful teams ever assembled, comparable to the 1927 team for which Ruth had hit 60 home runs as it won 110 games.
The 1936 Yankees won the pennant by 19 ‡-game margin. And they won it in 1937, and 1938, and 1939--plus the World Series as well each time.
Now the cry, "Break up the Yankees," first heard in 1927, acquired a desperate timbre. The flow of material from the farms seemed overwhelming: Joe Gordon, Charlie Keller, Red Rolfe, Spud Chandler and a dozen other. And so, in 1940, a rule was passed aimed specifically at the Yankees: No team would be allowed to trade with the team that had won the pennant the previous year. But the Yankees did not win in 1940. Crippled by injuries, and perhaps victims of the law of averages, they ran third in an extremely close race. And the no-trading rule was promptly repealed.
But they did win again in 1941 (by 17 games), and in 1942 and 1943. Phil Rizzuto, Gerald Priddy, Marius Russo, Billy Johnson, Tiny Bonham, Atley Donald, Buddy Rosar- -the stream from the farm system was a flood.
World War II, it seemed, was what finally stopped the Yankees in 1944 and 1945, when all baseball was a disordered scramble. However, a totally new chapter was in the making. Ruppert had died in 1939, and Barrow had remained in charge as president. In 1945, Ruppert's heirs decided to sell. A three-man syndicate bought the club for $2,800,000. The three were Dan Topping, heir to a tin-and-banking fortune and well- known as a man-about-town and sports promoter; Del Webb, a self-made contractor who had prospered during the war years; and Larry MacPhail, the man who had introduced night baseball to the major leagues (in Cincinnati in 1935) and had brought the Brooklyn Dodgers out of the second division to the promised land of a National League pennant in 1941.
In 1946, the year the stars were all back from service, the Yankees finished a disappointing third. But in 1947 they won the pennant again, by 12 games--and a tumultuous seven-game World Series from the Dodgers. The victory party was even more tumultuous. MacPhail had a fight with his partners. They bought him out. Topping became president of the club, and Weiss moved in as general manager. In 1948, the Yankees finished third, missing the pennant by two games, and manager Bucky Harris was fired. Weiss made his own choice (backed by Webb) of a successor: Casey Stengel.
And so it happened that under Stengel came the greatest success of all: 10 pennants in 12 years, most of them in dramatic last-gasp races. The farm system was never better: Mantle, Ford, Howard, Berra, Vic Raschi, Gil McDougald, Hank Bauer, Bobby Brown, Jerry Coleman, Johnny Lindell--and later Bill Skowron, Tony Kubek, Bobby Richardson, Tom Tresh, Joe Pepitone, Mel Stottlemyre. When a veteran was needed, a whole group of young players could be traded for him (Johnny Sain, Maris, Bob Turley, Don Larsen, Bobby Shantz became Yankees in this way).
In 1960, Topping decided he could dispense with Stengel and Weiss, on grounds of finding "new blood." Houk, a coach under Stengel, had won the complete confidence of Topping and the Yankee players. He was a firm choice as Stengel's successor. He had had other offers, and if he weren't promoted now, Topping would lose him. So the 70- year-old Stengel would be "retired," and so would the 66-year-old Weiss. Roy Hamey, an experienced but not particularly forceful baseball man, with no great history of success, would replace Weiss, and Topping himself would be more active.
Actually, Topping's thoughts boiled down to the idea that the machine was running so smoothly that nothing could upset it. And it certainly seemed that way for the next three years. Under Houk, for a while, at least, the team seemed stronger than ever, and 1961 was a banner year--attendance up, a decisive victory over Detroit in a race that stayed close until September, a home run spree by Maris that surpassed Ruth's record of 60 and an easy victory in the World Series.
But 1961 was also the year the league expanded to 10 teams. Some to the Yankee surplus strength was drawn off in stocking the new teams. And in 1962 the league was so weak that the Angels, one of the expansion teams, finished third. The Yankees won again, but attendance fell. In 1963, they won again, and so easily that an uncharacteristic idea was honored: Hamey, who hadn't been well, could retire; Houk, who had no front- office experience, could become general manager; and Yogi Berra, always popular with Yankee fans, could become manager, boosting the gate.
Why was the idea uncharacteristic? Because it broke Yankee patterns in several significant ways. The front office had always been in the hands of an immensely experienced and strong executive--Barrow, MacPhail, Weiss. Even Hamey had held every conceivable baseball job, from league president down, before stepping in as head of the Yankee organization. And the field manager had also always been a man of tremendous experience in that peculiar profession--Huggins, McCarthy, Harris, Stengel. Houk, as Yankee manager, came especially well prepared for the specific team, having managed many of the key players in the farm system, and having served as a coach under Stengel.
But now the team on the field was to be put into the hands of a man whose playing career hadn't quite ended, and who had never managed anywhere; and into the front office went Houk, who had nothing whatever in his background to qualify for such a position beyond his native strong will, ambition and alertness.
It was a concept based on the arrogance that came with decades of supremacy. Anything we want to do, we can do, the Yankees seemed to say. So the peak was reached in 1961-- and extended, in a way, through 1963. Another pennant was going to be won in 1964, but just barely. The underlying deterioration was well under way.
There were (and are) four main reasons for the decline.
First, the rules governing operation of the farm system were revised after World War II-- at least partly in an attempt to counteract the overpowering success of teams like the Yankees. In the old days a major-league team could control hundreds of farm players shuffling them from one minor league team to another, letting them develop slowly, stockpiling here, moving in for a man they wanted there, at just the right time.
Under today's regulations, no team can really control more than 40 players. The stockpiling of talent is not possible, however brilliant or hard-working a club's staff may be. If a team loads up its 40-man roster with promising youngsters, it gives up the veterans it needs to win in the majors. If it keeps the best older players, its minor league prospects will be picked off by weaker clubs. Thus, the traditional Yankee technique of rebuilding simply doesn't exist any more.
Other rules that had similar effects dealt with bonus players. By 1950, untried high school prospects were getting $100,000 just to sign a contract, as 16 major-league teams bid for the best ones. At first, limits were places on the size of such payments, but these rules were widely ignored. Then it became compulsory to keep a "bonus player"--one who received more than a nominal amount--on the parent club for two years before he could be farmed out. Then first-year players, if not kept on the major club, could be drafted the next year for a nominal fee. Finally, in 1965, the "free-agent draft" went into effect. Now teams don't compete for prospects at all; they "draft" the right to negotiate-- one team opting for one particular player, each time around--choosing in reverse order of the previous year's standings.
Second, an equalization of the power of money has occurred. There are no "poor" clubs in the major leagues today. While some may have greater resources than others, even the weakest have sufficient capital to operate effectively without selling talent to make ends meet. The expansion of radio and the development of television have greatly increased the revenues available to major-league clubs (at the expense of the minors incidentally). Marketing methods--for tickets, concessions, etc.--have been modernized. The growth of suburban areas has broadened the base for customers wherever sufficient parking facilities exist.
Third, the talent pool of promising young players has, in general, been greatly dilute. As recently as a generation ago a career with one of the 16 major-league clubs was still the only realistic opportunity for wealth and fame as an athlete (except for boxing). Today young athletes can and do concentrate on football, basketball and golf--as tickets to college and as careers in themselves. The minor leagues in baseball no longer pay a competitive living wage. And the talent that is left is now spread among 20 teams--and in a few years will be spread among 24.
Fourth, along with more money have come know-how and aggressiveness in the front offices of most big-league teams. Where these qualities were once exceptional, they are now universal. Yankee victims learned from Yankee methods. The new owners-- Ruppet-typed owners--are men with vast resources in other businesses, interested in baseball for the prestige and fun of it and able to generate tremendous financial leverage under the tax laws that would have been impossible 30 to 40 years ago.
When the Yankees made it five pennants in a row in 1964, they still seemed unstoppable, but it was not so. Even under Weiss, in the late nineteen-fifties, they had started losing ground. As the new regulations piled up, they were increasingly facing what amounted to a stacked deck. By the nature of the game, only a couple of teams each year could be strong contenders, while five or six had to be also-rans. Whenever "socialistic"--or "equalizing"--legislation came up, the have-nots would be in the majority. Eventually, the have-nots prevailed.
With such rules in the offing, the Yankees needed front-office leadership of the highest calibre: first, to oppose such rules effectively; second, to devise totally new ways of operating under them. In the inexperienced Houk, and the less interested Topping, the Yankees didn't have them.
For Topping had become less interested. For personal and financial reasons, he had decided to sell the club (and Webb went along). He had passed 50; he had been married six times and had many children. Tax considerations and family obligations made him seek a buyer. C.B.S. became the buyer in August, 1964, paying $11.2 million for an 80-per-cent share of the club. Topping and Webb each kept 10 per cent.
Under Berra, the Yankees were floundering, but staying alive. C.B.S. made it clear that, for the time being, Topping and Houk would remain in charge. But both had become disenchanted with Yogi, and had decided to replace him.
By now, the Yankee team was essentially the same as it had been for three seasons. The usual rate of replacement wasn't working. The farm system was producing isolated right spots, but not a steady flow. Nevertheless, the Yankees of 1964 made a great drive in September and won the pennant on the nest-to-last day. From one direction, they looked great, because they had just made it five championships in a row; but from another, it could be seen that they were essentially no better than the teams that finished second and third (Chicago and Baltimore). They had come back to the pack.
Houk and Topping, along with most baseballs fans and experts, took the rosy view. They proceeded with the firing of Berra, and Keane was brought in (he had just resigned from the Cardinals after beating Berra in the World Series); a new era of invincibility was supposed to start in 1965.
It didn't. Injuries contributed to the debacle, but it was much more than that. Overnight, the 1965 Yankees were just another club. They finished sixth, out of the race for the first time in 40 years.
All last winter Yankee management tried to shrug off 1965 as a peculiar misfortune. But as soon as the new season began things looked just as bad. The team lost 16 of its first 20 games--and Keane was dropped. Houk returned to the dugout, leaving the front office, in effect, unoccupied. The team picked up momentarily, but Maris, Mantle and Ford got hurt again and that was that.
And so, as the season wore on, the Yankees sank to the bottom. What promising young players there were were kept in the minors. (There are potential stars among them, but in nothing like the quantity of dynastic days.)
Did C.B.S. make a mistake? That depends on what it expects from the deal. One way or another, the Yankees will always do well enough to show a profit, although the size may fluctuate. Did Topping shrewdly "unload" a deteriorating property? Probably not, because if he had really recognized deterioration it might not have come so fast. Forces of the times were pulling the Yankees down to a common level, but the fall right through to the bottom, in two years, took everyone by surprise--including Topping. Two weeks ago, with the team locked in the cellar, he got out entirely, selling his 10 per cent interest (Webb had sold his in 1965) to C.B.S. and leaving the corporation in sole charge of the team.
The original deal had been based on Topping's friendship with William S. Paley, head of C.B.S., and came about partly because it made sense financially (the books showed sizable Yankee profits for a period of many years) and partly because C.B.S. thought to gain prestige by acquiring the elite of an "entertainment field."
The prestige aspect has blown up, once and for all. Yankee teams may win pennants again--may, in fact, win one fairly quickly--but for the foreseeable future they will be "just another team," win or lose.
And the financial picture has one overriding blemish: Yankee Stadium itself. So magnificent when built, it is now obsolete structurally, hemmed in by what many consider a declining neighborhood, choked for parking space, less accessible through deteriorating public transportation and not as attractive as the city-built Shea Stadium that the Mets occupy. How much money should, or will, C.B.S. invest? Will the corporation build a new park, rebuild this one, or try to share Shea Stadium with the Mets? These are questions only the highest echelons of C.B.S. can answer.
Along with the collapse has come the evaporation of the Yankee mystique. Opponents no longer feel the awe, and the Yankee players themselves no longer feel the magic power. Nor do the Yankee fans, who rode so high for so long. Today, considering the uncertainties of the future, all concerned must take comfort from one thought: it sure was some dynasty while it lasted.
We of course already already know the answer to your rhetorical type question...Yankeees, blah blah...and of course the Yankees basically "dominated" MLB back then
Exactly, are they dominating baseball today?
Steve
<< <i>We of course already already know the answer to your rhetorical type question...Yankeees, blah blah...and of course the Yankees basically "dominated" MLB back then
Exactly, are they dominating baseball today?
Steve >>
No the Yankees aren't dominating today, but they are up there in the standings almost every season. However I'm trying to illustrate the interconnection between everything here...teams stealing players who turn into mercenaries with no interest in their team or the city or the city's fans they happen to be playing for, and waning lack of fan interest in the game compared to the NFL which has a salary cap which basically for the most part keeps all teams competitive - there are variations from year-to-year, decade-to-decade, but most fans would agree that the NFL system and their salary cap helps keep their teams competitive.
Look at the Red Sox near the top of that list - they've won 2 out of the last 4 WS...the teams with the highest payroll doesn't always, everytime win the WS, but "naturally" the highest payroll teams are usually near or at the top of the standings, almost every season...and basically have the best chance of winning the WS because on paper they have the best talent...which they've usually stolen from other teams.
We're talking about "fairness" here Steve but as you are a NY Mets fan, I don't expect you to want to understand this...seems like you'd rather hurt the "game" than risk your team not having a chance to win the WS every single season.
But as Mets fans learned last season...the best team "on paper" doesn't always win the NL East. So there! Ha!
-
Also consider the only reason they only own 1/3 of YES is because they sold the other 2/3 for hundreds of millions. When the Yankees make that much money before they sell even a single ticket and congress gives them anti-trust status, wanting them to pay their employees far less and put even more money in the hands of management is absolutely rediculous
To sum up my opinion, I agree that payroll differences need to shrink and because I don't see a salary cap happening any time soon (thanks to the player's union) I think that the luxury tax, revenue sharing, and a salary floor are the best ways (in today's environment) to ensure payrolls become more equitable.
<< <i>Boo - you make some good points and I guess I shouldn't have said that I don't like a salary cap . . . I can see the value in having one. What irritates me though is that the financially successful clubs subsidize the less fortunate clubs and many of the owners receiving this welfare assistance do nothing with it except line their own pockets. Every owner is entitled to spend their money how they see fit and it would not be appropriate to make them pay as much as Boston, New York, et al, but why should big market teams share their revenue with teams that do nothing to field a product that benefits the league?
To sum up my opinion, I agree that payroll differences need to shrink and because I don't see a salary cap happening any time soon (thanks to the player's union) I think that the luxury tax, revenue sharing, and a salary floor are the best ways (in today's environment) to ensure payrolls become more equitable. >>
These are all good points, Von, but let me say (as someone who has been a Tiger fan since 1984, and has, as such, suffered through some very lean years) that rooting for a 73 win team isn't any more exciting than rooting for a 65 win team. I don't think it makes financial sense for the small market owners to pump money into their teams unless they think that money will give them a shot at competing for a playoff berth, so I don't blame them for pocketing the dough.
One point that Stevek made-- and I think it bears repeating-- is that having these enormous competitive disparities in MLB could very well have a corrosive effect on the league's popularity going forward. If you're an eight year old kid living in Miami, or Pittsburgh, or KC, or Tampa, are you going to give a flying fondue about the local MLB team? I completely agree with you when you say that a salary cap is not forthcoming, but I think that's going to work to the league's detriment as the year's progress.
<< <i>Interesting editorial on Yankees profits
Also consider the only reason they only own 1/3 of YES is because they sold the other 2/3 for hundreds of millions. When the Yankees make that much money before they sell even a single ticket and congress gives them anti-trust status, wanting them to pay their employees far less and put even more money in the hands of management is absolutely rediculous >>
Why should a fan of, say, the Royals give a damn whether the Yankees' management gets to keep the loot instead of having it funneled into A-Rod's checking account? If you're talking about letting the market clear for labor, that's one thing. If you're talking about establishing a competitive balance in MLB, then I don't see how this kind of revenue distribution argument is relevant.
Boo made a good point with mentioning the other teams...one of my good friends is a KC Royals fan and when Beltran left a few seasons back because there was no way KC could afford him, my friend was sickened by it. George Brett is his favorite player of all time and in today's market, about 4 - 5 years or so into his career, Brett would likely be playing for the Yankees or Boston...and that's simply not fair and destroys the enthusiasm of many for the game.
-
huh?
<<<Beltran left a few seasons back because there was no way KC could afford him,>>>
That is what they want you to think.
You bought it hook line and sinker.
The Royals can afford just about any player they wish.
Steve
It had everything to do with money, he signed a contract, was the highest paid player then someone else signed a higher one and he wanted to re negotiate.
He and the GM at the time were then at each others throats, the Daily News and Dick Young beat him up and he was then traded to Cincy.
And FWIW the owners of these ballclubs are multimillionaires, some are billionaires and can pay these guys millions.
Baseball clubs make money, comparing them to the NFL is like comparing Apples and Oranges. The NFL plays 16 games, Baseball plays 162!
That is 162 times they make money.
Steve
<< <i>and waning lack of fan interest in the game compared to the NFL
huh?
<<<Beltran left a few seasons back because there was no way KC could afford him,>>>
That is what they want you to think.
You bought it hook line and sinker.
The Royals can afford just about any player they wish.
Steve >>
<<< waning lack of fan interest in the game compared to the NFL >>>
Let's take say 20 years ago - if you think MLB is more popular now than 20 years ago, then you might be the only person on earth who believes that. Likewise the NFL has without a doubt gained in popularity from 20 years ago.
<<< The Royals can afford just about any player they wish. >>>
Boo and others already implied this point. Yes, some owners don't "seriously" care to win, but look at the NFL with their cap...there are some "cheap" NFL owners but not as many percentagewise as in MLB in my opinion. If the KC Royals owner under a salary cap, thought Beltran could help his team win more games to the point of drawing more fans to justify his salary cost, then he would have been signed by KC - not having a cap makes it very hard for a small market team to justify a salary such as this.
<< <i>but it had to do with other reasons besides money if I'm remembering correctly.
It had everything to do with money, he signed a contract, was the highest paid player then someone else signed a higher one and he wanted to re negotiate.
He and the GM at the time were then at each others throats, the Daily News and Dick Young beat him up and he was then traded to Cincy.
And FWIW the owners of these ballclubs are multimillionaires, some are billionaires and can pay these guys millions.
Baseball clubs make money, comparing them to the NFL is like comparing Apples and Oranges. The NFL plays 16 games, Baseball plays 162!
That is 162 times they make money.
Steve >>
I didn't Google it....but that's what I remembered...the problems Seaver had with Mets management...sometimes I think it gets to the point where it is more than just about a few dollars - people quit jobs all the time on matters not related completely to money. But I would agree that when free agents leave teams, for the most part it is usually about the money, no matter what "spin" a player may put on the various reasons for his leaving - I always felt though that Seaver really didn't want to leave New York.
<<< Baseball clubs make money, comparing them to the NFL is like comparing Apples and Oranges. The NFL plays 16 games, Baseball plays 162! >>>
Well, no since continuing to talk to a "brick wall" about the subject if you believe it's apples and oranges here, which it definitely isn't as far as the benefits of a salary cap is concerned.
-
Really? Then why is attendance UP in MLB?
MLB is as popular now then it has ever been.
I guess I am the only person that thinks this.
Steve
lol I am a MET fan I think you are a tad confused, and by the way the Philadelphia A's were a dominate 30's team.
Personally I don't care what MLB does or does not do. IMO because they play so many games and REVENUE is there they need no cap.
Do you really think the Players want a cap?
The only people that want a cap are those like you, fans of teams that never win anything unless that back into it.
LOL
Steve
<< <i>You're a conceited NY baseball fan because you've had a sports gravy train handed to you your whole life with your team's money stealing all the best players - but that isn't doing the overall game any good. Fortunately, baseball is such a great game that despite owners such as Steinbrenner, they still can't kill it.
lol I am a MET fan I think you are a tad confused, and by the way the Philadelphia A's were a dominate 30's team.
Personally I don't care what MLB does or does not do. IMO because they play so many games and REVENUE is there they need no cap.
Do you really think the Players want a cap?
The only people that want a cap are those like you, fans of teams that never win anything unless that back into it.
LOL
Steve >>
Thank you for illustrating "conceited" for us.
<< <i>Let's take say 20 years ago - if you think MLB is more popular now than 20 years ago, then you might be the only person on earth who believes that.
Really? Then why is attendance UP in MLB?
MLB is as popular now then it has ever been.
I guess I am the only person that thinks this.
Steve >>
For one thing, there's a lot more people in the US than 20 years ago - just because the attendance is higher, doesn't mean MLB is more popular than 20 years ago, especially compared to the NFL. And look at all the perks that are needed to attract many people to a MLB game these days - not that there's anything wrong with that, but years ago fans came out for the game, not for all the other extraneous stuff found at MLB games.
NFL fans don't need the extraneous stuff even though tailgating is a nice tradition - NFL fans come for the game, to see a good competitive game with the hope their team wins a championship. If you think that isn't relevant and you want to use the "attendance argument" for popularity, then just look at all the empty seats in the stands of MLB teams that are out of championship contention late in the season.
salary cap=competitiveness=popularity squared
or easier yet for you:
sc=cp2
<< <i>Here ya go winpitcher - a simple formula because this thread seems to be getting too complicated for you. LOL
salary cap=competitiveness=popularity squared
or easier yet for you:
sc=cp2 >>
Or..............
r2d2 = c3pO
poker, gambling, 53 topps cards that are trimmed/recolored
Maybe you can explain why then Arizona has the best record in baseball?
and if you can answer that maybe you could enlighten us further and tell me why Detroit is in the crapper?
Just because you say it is so steviek does not make you correct.
MLB has 30 teams, last yr almost 20 of them were still in a PO spot going into the last week.
Stop comparing MLB with the NFL that is like comparing apples and oranges. baseball has always had promotions.
You look silly trying to sound smart.
You are not.
Steve
Steve
Free agents are. The way you use the word every player is then.
and i see how you blew pass my question, so I'll ask it again:
Do you think the players will go for a cap?
simple question that while you were acting like a blohard you skipped right over.
what makes me laugh is all you message bd no it alls say MLB needs a cap, yet the people running the show don't, I wonder why that is?
surely their are MORE small and middle market clubs that would benefit from it? I wonder why they see no need for it?
maybe you being the all knowing will explain that?
Guys running multi million dollar clubs should hire you.
Steve
<< <i>Whatever you say steviek you are afterall the know it all of the forum.
poker, gambling, 53 topps cards that are trimmed/recolored
Maybe you can explain why then Arizona has the best record in baseball?
and if you can answer that maybe you could enlighten us further and tell me why Detroit is in the crapper?
Just because you say it is so steviek does not make you correct.
MLB has 30 teams, last yr almost 20 of them were still in a PO spot going into the last week.
Stop comparing MLB with the NFL that is like comparing apples and oranges. baseball has always had promotions.
You look silly trying to sound smart.
You are not.
Steve >>
<<< poker, gambling, 53 topps cards that are trimmed/recolored >>>
I do happen to know a lot about these subjects, more than most...and I enjoy communicating with good posters here...for example I enjoy Boo's viewpoints on gambling, I enjoy Grote15's extensive knowledge on waxpacks, I enjoy Iamthegreatcornholio's intelligent points about mathematics and odds, and posts from others who I enjoy reading their opinions, viewpoints, and learning from some of them.
I'm not a "know it all" no matter what you may think. So lighten up Steve and enjoy the forum...and contact Axtell when you want someone to respond to your inane comments...because my conversations here with you are done.
-
felt you needed to diminish mine. maybe you should think before you try to ridicule someone
cuz it will in most cases come back and bite you in the butt.
maybe you were just kidding but I really don't need you to make statements that I need
your help in understanding things, you have your opinion and that is fine I have mine as well.
Calling me conceited, and making up some silly formula in order to help me understand makes you look foolish,
Good I'm glad that you are done cuz I'm tired of you acting like a hypocrit.
Steve
salary cap=competitiveness=popularity squared
or easier yet for you:
sc=cp2
Steve
Good then reply to them then and not to me, God knows you failed to answer almost every one of my questions anyway.
Take your own advice and lighten up yourself.
Out.
Steve
I think you've let SteveK get to you here a little bit... A lot of trash talk goes back and forth here between Mets & Silly Fans, but it's all in good fun, IMO. Let's not turn it into more than it is...just talk on a message board. I don't think anything is intended to be vindictive. Just my 2 cents...FWIW.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Of course I know he talks trash, I was just giving it back in kind.
If he can dish it out he should be able to take it too.
Right?
Steve
<< <i>Grote I had no problem with it, he is the one that told me to lighten up.
Of course I know he talks trash, I was just giving it back in kind.
If he can dish it out he should be able to take it too.
Right?
Steve >>
Steve, you in my view were beginning to cross the line between trash talk and "internet tough guy" talk - I've never been into the internet tough guy routine, and don't intend to start now. I don't say anything on the internet to somebody that I wouldn't say to that person if they were standing right in front of me - that's the way I do it...you do it anyway you want but I'm not going to participate in it.
-
I thought you were done with me?
Steve
<< <i>SteveK you are such a freaking hypocrit. You talk trash then when you get some back you whine.
I thought you were done with me?
Steve >>
Now I am. Don't cry too much over it. LOL